To ask if anyone here actually thinks a step parents wage should be considered for CMS?

[TheSpoonAndTheFork]

Because my husband's ex seems to think so and is currently enraged that I have zero plan or requirement to.

I'm fully aware that CMS do not take into account a SPs earnings and that legally she is not entitled to anything from my wages. I'm just curious as to whether more people think like her (entitled as imo) that they should take it into account.

YANBU - no it's right that CMS don't take into account a step parents earnings

YABU - they don't but they should.

@DrinkFeckArseBrick yes that makes sense. CMS shouldn't be based on the step-parent's salary but the RP should be able to apply to the courts for an income review if the NRP has chosen to reduce their earnings either by going part time or by giving up work altogether, or in any other way has structured their finances to be able to live a lifestyle of a level of comfort and luxury that is significantly out of keeping with their "declared" earnings for CMS purposes (catching out the dads who are poor as church mice on paper and pay minimal CMS whilst actually being wealthy but funneling the money through other channels). The courts should be able to assess the overall lifestyle wealth level of the NRP and set a CMS level which is in keeping with supporting their children to live at a similar level, regardless of what the NRPs "official" income is.

Not necessarily. There are all sorts of situations, it isn’t always as simple as man moves in with woman and dc and gets cm reduced.

if she moves in with a man with dc they will also get their cm reduced. So for example dh’s ex moves in with OM, he gets his maintenance reduced. So she now has two adults providing income, plus 20% of her ex’s wage, while her OM is now paying less CM because he’s living with her kids.

as the resident parent, usually mum, is expected to maximise her earnings, the CMS calculation does not take into account the RP's income. Which as It is I agree is fair but if we're going to start including mine then it should sure as he'll take into account she chooses not to work as much as she could.

Optional yes mandated hell no. This is their child not yours and yes like many step parents you will pay towards that child but you should never be forced

I would possibly agree with this in exceptional circumstances as long as there was no obligation for the stepparent to be the one to pay it - the parent should. And I'd want the receiving parents actual needs to be taken into account.

You decided to get together with someone who had children.

Therefore you take them on as your own and should contribute towards them when they’re at yours and hers, because they are now part of your family.

The step parents wage used to be taken into account when the CSA was first set up many years ago.
One of my friends was handing over literally half of her wages every month until she said no more and got divorced.
I wouldn't pay for someone else's kids!

You're having a laugh

Except if a "dad" moved in with you and your children he would get his child support reduced because he would be paying towards raising your children this disadvantages his bio children who now have 1- 1/2 parents paying for the non bio children who now have 2 1/2 parents paying

It's all weighted in the favour of the non custodial parent

You can't do anything about benefits, but I see no reason why an ex should pay maintenance for their ex-partner except if eg they are in their 60s and haven't worked because they were facilitating the ex-s career. Otherwise they can get out there and get a job like the rest of us do (with the ex paying towards childcare).

As for the kids, no, you should not take into account a step parent's earnings. You are responsible for your own kids and should pay accordingly.

In general no. The only exception is that if the dad becomes a sahp and has no income. That might work for his relationship with a current partner (perhaps if she is a higher earner or for childcare reasons) but his older children don't stop existing and would still need expenses to be met. At that point I think the stepparents income should be considered and they should think carefully about the whole family including step kids.

Ways to make it fair without taking into account the step parents wages

Stop deduction for non bio children you had children pay for them

No reduction for future children again your choice first families should not be disadvantaged by second

Where the non custodial parent has quit work and become a stay at home parent to children that arnt theirs the child support should continue as previously set

Where a parent repeatedly stops and starts work to keep their contribution down sanctions should include the continuous payment of child support set while they are working

I'm not sure what to do in the case of female non custodial parents having more children and staying at home but I think one idea would be, to be like universal credit and have the expectation that they will start work around age three 🤔 and pick it back up from there....maybe

I also think a lot more should be done about self employed people and people clearly mis declaring their income for example my ex drives a new car but he claims it as his girlfriend's car its in her name etc etc except she can't drive and isn't having lessons its CLEARLY his car can't prove it apparently common sense isn't proof

It's for the child, the receiving parent could be a millionaire but the CHILD is still entitled to support from both parents

Fuck no, I already spend my money on them, plus half the household we have to have to accommodate them instead of the 1 bed flat i'd be happy with, am I fuck willing to have my wage considered so their mother gets even more. And on that basis, if she meets someone, surely his income should be accounted for in terms of what their household can afford to reduce the liability. If my wage should be considered, why shouldnt his.

I don't agree with that either.

The only way this could work would be if it was half the current percentage ie 8% of dual-income household’s income rather than 16% of NRP’s income. And in that scenario many children would probably get less as it’d incorporate non-working or part-time second wives (more of those around than breadwinner new wives).

It’d be an administrative nightmare to vary in this way but I do think whether CMS is enough is largely dependent on the child(ren)‘s age. Nursery and teenage = often not enough; primary age = often more than enough.

I don’t think it’s fair that CMS is reduced if a NRP moves in with someone else’s children, though.

And the calculations for student loans isn’t great either.

I think the current system is too rigid.

So generally I think a step parents income shouldn’t be included, but it the NRP is saying their contribution should come down due to step kids or additional children living in the house, then yes it should be factored in.

I think there should also be attention paid to deliberate reduction of income by NRPs, including by making the step parent the bread winner and NRP being a SAHP to younger kids so that they have zero income for their older kids maintenance.

So it depends.

I'm not sure what to do in the case of female non custodial parents having more children and staying at home but I think one idea would be, to be like universal credit and have the expectation that they will start work around age three 🤔 and pick it back up from there....maybe

I don't think it should be any different for male and females surely? Whether or not the NRP is male or female should be irrelevant, they should still be paying for their first children and if they cannot do that and be a SAHP to any new children, then they can't afford to be a SAHP.

I definitely agree there are already scenarios in the current systems which are unfair / hypocritical. I don't think you'll ever have a perfect system where no one ever takes the piss or finds loop holes though unfortunately.

I don't think just because some deadbeats become a SAHP to avoid maintenance, then all step parents the country over should have their income considered though.

It definitely shouldn't be reduced if a man moves in with a woman's children. Definitely not.

Absolutely not. Ex barely pays CMS anyway. His current wife should not be paying for his previous DC. Altho I do think their combined income should be considered before discounting the amount he pays for his older dc, as his having more dc doesn’t mean my dc need less financial support from the pittance I’m able to get from him.

My husband is dying of cancer and has had to give up work. In March, he was taken to a CMS tribunal by ex and it was ruled that we should continue payments from my salary to the same amount as it was before he left work, because his ex wife argues that he only gave up work to avoid paying her. She also told the judge he only has them EOW and judge wouldn’t accept our proof of otherwise.

Payments are currently around £1750 pcm and yet we have my step children 3 days out of 7 every week, plus half of all school hols etc. (My husband used to be a high earner before he had to stop working.

Our mortgage is £1500, so it’s actually my highest expense. My parents are now subbing me so that I can afford to pay for food and clothes for my child (shared with husband), until my husband dies and our mortgage insurance kicks in. We have a provision in his will to ensure that she still gets her payments after he’s dead, so that she can’t force me to sell the house.

I cannot help but be bitter. My best friend is dying and I’m being hounded for money I can’t afford while my SC’s mum hasn’t worked since 2008!

I know there will be no sympathy for me on here, because I’m the second wife and I “knew what I was getting into” and I shouldn’t be a “breeder” etc. Heard it all before, naturally.

We just sold his old car to raise some extra funds and then she emailed us to let us know she will be telling the next tribunal about this “windfall” so they can apportion her some of it. It was £4,000 ffs.

All of the focus is on how the CMS is biased towards the paying parent but that has NEVER been our experience. We have tried to appeal and with no success.

^this

I think a lot needs to be done around the self employment type of stuff.

Also assets. My ex-h has assets that he should pay some extra maintenance on, according to the CMS rules. However the only way to get the additional money is for me to provide the proof - I have no idea how I'm expected to get the paperwork to prove it.

I generally don't expect a step parent's income to be taken into account (though I'd hope they treated the kids as theirs when they are with them) but I'd make an exception for the cases where the parent was living solely off the step parent's income.

That’s horrific.